Dynamite

I suppose one reason I have such a hard time getting to the point is that the points keep intersecting and circling back to each other.

They way we talk about money -- where tradition dictates that it is gauche and improper to talk about financial specifics -- works better to uphold economic exploitation. For example, not talking about wages makes it easier for gender and race-based pay discrepancies to persist.

That also helps the bigotries persist. Those who are earning more and getting better loan conditions can easily believe they deserve it, and that the only barriers to other people are their own flaws, laziness, or poor choices.

It's easy to believe that when you are on the other side of it as well. With both sides reinforcing each other, the tendency is to consolidate power.

What I was trying to get to a week ago was that college used to be much less expensive. I hinted at some of the factors that have changed that, but I wanted to get to one specific thing, and how it is part of a broader picture:

https://theintercept.com/2022/08/25/student-loans-debt-reagan/

There was a time when the state of California had an amazing college system. A year at Berkeley cost California residents a $300 fee. Now, that was a long time ago... it would be more like $2000 annually now, but compared to $40,000 annually it still sounds pretty good.

California was not the only state with affordable higher education, but I do remember it being more practical for a young Beverly Cleary to live with relatives in California and attend college there (Berkeley, in fact) than in Portland. 

Still, college had been more affordable in general, and the GI Bill would have cleared some additional obstacles. Therefore, through the 1960s student debt was not a large factor, until Reagan.

While you would not expect the man who broke the air traffic controllers union to be in favor of sharing and spreading power, he had a head start before then.

Reagan had already come down hard on the state school system in his speeches while running for governor in 1966, but it was in 1970 that he actually shut the schools down.

He was running for re-election, so the decision could have been somewhat strategic (it worked last time), but I believe he sincerely hated the student-led protests against the war in Vietnam.

I do not believe that the statement of the threat was completely sincere.

As first stated by Reagan's education adviser, Roger Freeman, who was defending Reagan:

“We are in danger of producing an educated proletariat. … That’s dynamite! We have to be selective on who we allow [to go to college].”

“If not,” Freeman continued, “we will have a large number of highly trained and unemployed people.” Freeman also said — taking a highly idiosyncratic perspective on the cause of fascism —“that’s what happened in Germany. I saw it happen.”

I am not disputing that there was unemployment at the time of the rise of fascism in Germany, but it was not a highly educated movement either. The ones who embrace fascism most strongly are more likely to be anti-intellectual, correlating with their penchant for book burning. 

(Looking at Trump supporters, after whiteness the next common denominator is not being college-educated.)

As it is, the students protesting were disruptive, and probably embarrassing. It was happening right after advances in civil rights that Reagan would be working on undoing in just another ten years, so of course they had to go.

That sentiment about being careful about whom we allow to go to college? I hate the snobbery and arrogance of that. There is still some truth coming out, with an educated proletariat being dynamite.

Can we use that? Can we blow up prejudice and inequality and exploitation?

There are some serious obstacles, but there can still be hope.